**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[Richard]

Nice to see somebody can get away with ironic personal insults (and mentions a thread where I didn't generalise whatsoever, only vague on the definition of mediocre and said exactly who it related to). As for calling someone who has As in Physics and Further Maths and a B in Maths at A-level an idiot, I guess you must be doing some pretty clever rocket science or brain surgery then.

(btw don't bother replying you're on the ignore list, only marc quoted the above quote otherwise I'd have missed it)

Oh, you're not the centre of The World, sonny - I don't really care whether you read this or not, believe it or not there are people who are rather more important than you.
Whether you're an academic idiot or not I didn't actually comment on - for everyone's information, I've got A-levels in English and Geography and As-levels in Chemistry and Physics, just so we can see there's nothing in the relative academic abilities of the two of us and no irony whatsoever.
As for cricket-related stuff, well, from the garbage this idiot's come out with, such as the Atherton-Hussain thread, it seems he's not too flash on that.

Thread Content: I still say Zimbabwe will play Gough & Wharf without too much bother and will probably play Giles fairly well as Zim are usually not too bad against spinners.

That worked well, didn't it?
39.3-108-7 combined - and that despite Chigumbura's antics.
Let's hope the rest of the series continues to make this prediction look ridiculous. Not to mention that brilliant bowler Panyangara who was supposedly going to cause a few problems because he's apparently as good as Gough, being hammered for 32 off 6 without any wickets.

 

[Richard]

Depends on what subjects... Like all the thickos in the Royal Family take soft subjects like Art (random grade generator), History (dull fact memory test), General Studies (the ultimate in free A-level shortly followed by Media Studies).

Yea the sciences are proper subjects, except for computing which is incredibly tedious and has naff all to do with computing (that was what it was like when I did it anyway).

Another demonstration of idiocy - the commonplace arrogance and dismissal of Art and History and the like as "soft" subjects that goes with those who think they're better than the majority.
If you're totally useless at art as I am, you can appreciate at least some of the ability that it requires.
How good it must be to be on this one's ignore list.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is important to have both strike bowlers and economical bowlers in a one day side.

You have to get the balance right, but both types of bowler are required.

A good example of a bowler simply picked for his economy rate is Prosper Utseya. His averages is over 200, but he economy rate is just a tick over 4.

 

[Richard]

And hence he is by some considerable distance Zimbabwe's best ODI bowler.
Yet some would prefer have Panyangara and Hondo, who are apparently as good as Darren Gough. Just because they've managed to get a few more wickets against their name than they've deserved.

 

[Prince EWS]

Defining their best bowler would be difficult, as they all have their different roles to play.

Thats why I think they often beat expectations.

Hondo and Panyangara could really change a game, and could possibly win one for Zimbabwe, and I dont think Utseya could do that.

But he is consistantly doing his job, and never letting the team down. If Utseya had more wicket-takers around him, hed di a much better job, and Im sure hed take wickets as well. The opposition seem to think they can just play him out for 30-40 runs, and score off Hondo and the likes.

Possible Heros: Hondo, Panyangara
Most Consistant: Utseya
Best Bowler: Tough choice...

 

[Richard]

See, I don't think Panyangara and Hondo are good bowlers at all, I think both are terribly wayward excuses whose averages are rather lower than they deserve to be, and whose economy-rates are little short of disgraceful for supposed ODI bowlers.
With any luck their averages will rise in these upcoming three games.

 

[Craig]

Yes, but did he impress in that one?

5 wickets for 28.

Could have been a lot more worse.

 

[marc71178]

Not if the bowling is in the right areas.
You just do not seem to get that it is not possible to score off good bowling, no matter how many wickets you have in hand. Unless you have rare amounts of luck.

In a Test Match maybe, but in a One Day game a batsman has license to improvise.

 

[marc71178]

Most of the players who've been picked on "hunches" have failed - most of the players who've done well have got good domestic records.

Vaughan, Trescothick, Butcher...

 

[Scaly piscine]

In the last 10 overs you can easily get off 6 singles off an over if the bowling is very good, in a Test match you'd still get the odd quick single and runs to 3rd man.

 

[Richard]

In a Test Match maybe, but in a One Day game a batsman has license to improvise.

Of course he has the license to - but it doesn't make it easy to do.
Improvisation in batting takes a hell of a lot of skill - and sometimes luck, too.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan, Trescothick, Butcher...

Vaughan's First-Class record has been far better than his Test one since the time of his Test-debut; Butcher's domestic-First-Class average has been over 40 for most of his career; and Trescothick hasn't been anywhere near as much of a success as most tend to remember. Before last summer, he'd had 1 very good Test-match out of 17, and before that he'd been very lucky very often.
Even if he was an unqualified success, which surely no-one can really claim he has been (don't quote his raw average, it's inflated by Bangladesh games), he most certainly doesn't prove anything when his case is outnumbered by Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and the like.

 

[Richard]

In the last 10 overs you can easily get off 6 singles off an over if the bowling is very good, in a Test match you'd still get the odd quick single and runs to 3rd man.

Not easily at all - good bowling will see plenty of balls hit the fielders or go through to the wicketkeeper.
If the bowling is poor, 10-an-over isn't out of range at all; if it's good, you can quite easily keep a side to 5-an-over.

 

[Richard]

5 wickets for 28.

Could have been a lot more worse.

128, maybe?
I agree with whoever said that he's been blamed unduly for what was little short of a disgraceful bowling performance in that match; there were far worse perpetrators (Kirtley, Flintoff - whose no-ball quite conceivably cost the match).

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Even if he was an unqualified success, which surely no-one can really claim he has been (don't quote his raw average, it's inflated by Bangladesh games), he most certainly doesn't prove anything when his case is outnumbered by Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and the like.

Filtering out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe games, Trescothick's average still stands at a healthy 41.75 - deflated by 2.5 % compared to his "official" of 42.81.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Why should trescothick get his scores vs bangladesh not counted when everyone else should? i think you're just bias against him and nothing will change your mind

 

[Richard]

I don't count any Test-match or ODI statistics, for any player, against Bangladesh and post-WC2003-Zimbabwe.
But no, I can't be bothered to go and filter-out them every time I quote an average of a player whose average is not unduly affected.
No, Trescothick's overall average isn't altered much, but his average between 2002\03 and 2003\04 is.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A quality innings is a quality innings despite the opposition. You can only face the bowling set in front of you and if it's rubbish, it should be dispatched regardless of who delivers the rubbish. Agreed that success comes easier against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, but that's no reason to discredit the statistics. If you're going to be that picky, almost every team in world cricket has had a point in time when they were utter crap or close to it, so you don't consider those either?

 

[Richard]

Bangladesh and post-WC2003 Zimbabwe have been markedly worse than the rest. Whereas, for instance, pre-WC2003 Zimbabwe were merely the lowest of the up-to-standard nations, these two are simply substandard, and their presence damages the integrity of Test-match and ODI cricket.
Anything achieved against them is almost without fail best discounted, especially if it goes against the grain of what surrounds it in the real stuff.

 

[wpdavid]

I don't count any Test-match or ODI statistics, for any player, against Bangladesh and post-WC2003-Zimbabwe.
But no, I can't be bothered to go and filter-out them every time I quote an average of a player whose average is not unduly affected.
No, Trescothick's overall average isn't altered much, but his average between 2002\03 and 2003\04 is.

Dead right. I wonder if we'll see a change in his approach now there's actually some competition for his place in the side. Even in WI, he was pretty much fireproof, but now we're having to pick 5 from Tresco, Strauss, Key, Butcher, Vaughan, Bell & Thorpe, that isn't the case (OK I know Bell isn't in the squad for SA, but beyond then ...). I thought he looked awfully complacent last winter, but he can't aford that now, I hope.